Is Zimmerman Guilty?

See Margot, it isn't that difficult.

You are right the page won't open but I'll take your word for it. Does it say that NW members can't carry weapons at any time, even if they are not on patrol?

 

In Florida if you make someone fearful for their life or safety, you have committed assault even if you never touched them.

George had all the information.. TM had NONE.

Remember.. GZ didn't say TM was breaking into cars or houses.. He was just walking in the rain.

 

And you still have to be proven guilty.

If it is summarily dismissed at the self-defense hearing they don't have a leg to stand on. They would have to prove Martin was justified in assaulting Zimmerman and threatening him with serious bodily harm or death. There is no evidence of such a justification.

 

According to the statistics African Americans are more likely to be victims of racial crime than whites, so Travon was defending himself by striking the first blow after being followed by zimmerman..

 

I highly doubt that it does. lol. There were a lot of questions floating around about where it says the can't carry a gun on NW.....
I know he wasn't on patrol at the time, and thats fine, but when he called in to the non-emergency line, was he doing so as a neighborhood watch guy? (seriously asking) because that to me would mean that from the moment he called it in he was acting as neighborhood watch and from there on should have followed the rules/guidelines. However, I think there were misunderstandings on both sides that night that lead to the untimely death of TM, but regardless, Zimmerman will probably walk. There are a lot of inconsistencies to his account of the night that leave people (myself included) wondering if he is hiding something about that night, but ultimately unless anything to the contrary is actually proven then he will not be convicted.

 

Even Citizens on Patrol do NOT carry guns in Florida.. They do "patrol" in pairs and in marked cars.... and they have a lot more training.

 

LOL,,good one. I figured Travon must have checked those stats just before he Bobbed him...., smart fella that Travon...hahahaha.

 

Beyond reasonable doubt, which ain't always without errors. So we have an appeals process, in re: criminal guilt.

Dismissed with prejudice (dismissed and cannot be retried) would indeed be a nice alternative to facing a jury, which is always uncertain. But that would have no bearing on a civil case, and would likely not be allowed in evidence, since it's prejudicial. But indeed, potential trial lawyers might send the plaintiff wannabes hiking, under normal circumstances, but this case is packed with emotion and strong opinions. So I'd be loathe to bet money that Zimmerman will not face a civil suit, no matter the outcome. The Black Community is up in arms, and many are top notch trial attorneys.

 

If GZ had followed me at night in the rain, I would have hit him so hard that he wouldn't get up.

And I would have filed charges with the police.

 

Thinking about the NW rules it is a good idea that they have the no weapons guidelines. I don't have any idea if George was considered "on watch" once he called NEN. Seems like he said he didn't even remember he had his gun on him. I don't know about that. I would think a camera would be better than a weapon for a NW member.

 

You left out the word imminent.

"Assault refers to a threat of harm that leads to the victim's fear of imminent harm. The offense does not include physical contact between the perpetrator and the victim. To establish a case of assault, a state prosecutor must prove several legal elements. First, the prosecutor must show that the defendant intended to threaten the victim, cause the victim to feel fear, or carry out a violent act. If the defendant can show a lack of criminal intent because the act was an accident or a joke, the state may encounter difficulties with the case. The prosecutor must also show that the defendant demonstrated the threat through words, a gesture, or an intimidating act. The defendant must have shown an ability to carry out the threat and the victim must have feared imminent harm. "
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-assault-and-battery-laws.html


Martin had no reasonable fear of an imminent threat to his life of safety merely because someone was looking at them. In fact he stayed and walked around Zimmerman's car for several minutes staring at him acting threatening to Zimmerman as the 911 transcript shows so by you measure Martin assaulted Zimmerman twice. He then ran to the apartment he where he was staying. He told the girl friend he lost the guy and was no longer in danger so he was just going to walk. No imminent danger. He then choose to go back and confront Zimmerman.

Zimmerman hasn't even been charged with assault.

Fail.

So what?

No he said more than just walking in the rain.

 

Good post, I think there is a very good chance the Prosecution will offer a very sweet deal. They want a win for many reasons, and the possibility of civil unrest is very real with this. Besides if it goes split and they go to trial again Zimmerman will never have the money, so it may be in his best interest as well.

 

I agree with you..

If Trayvon had broken into a car, it would be a different ballgame.

I don't want the idiot Georges of this world following my kids or black kids.

George was living out some cop fantasy..

 

Here is what I think, and you can def take it with a grain of salt since it's just my opinion....
Z had called in suspicious behavior a number of times (that has been discussed many times at length) and so he had a pretty good idea of how long it would take for the police to get there. In his interview he said that after he shot TM the police arrived within 30 seconds.....(that is probably the saddest part of this entire damn situation)
I think we have a whole lot of misunderstandings that created a bad situation that left a teenager dead. Based on what i've read and listened to I think that Z got out of his car to keep an eye on TM (nothing wrong with that) at this point I do not believe he actually intended to confront him...i think he wanted to make sure didn't get away (as he said "these a**holes always get away) but i doubt he planned any altercation.
When TM noticed he was being watched he hurried his pace a bit to get out of sight (Z said in interview that TM didn't actually run...i've read and watched the interview several times to make sure....he wasn't "running" but skipping or quickly walking away) and then when he thought he had lost Z, TM slowed down. Z continued to keep an eye on him and when TM noticed that he hadn't in fact lost the guy he got defensive, and didn't understand why he was being followed....I do actually believe that TM thought he was defending himself from Z at the time, he didn't know why he was being followed by a stranger. He asked if Z had a problem, and this is where the whole issue comes in, who touched who? Did Z try to stop TM from leaving? or did TM, feeling defensive for having been followed feel it was necessary to punch Z? Either way, if they had just used their vocabulary, the whole thing could have been avoided. Both of them are at fault in one way or another, and TM....well he's paid the ultimate price for his actions....Z isn't the most intelligent person out there, but should he be put away for that? probably not, considering if we threw every stupid person in jail, there wouldn't be much of the free population left. The inconsistencies in his stories concern me that there may be more to what happened, but until any of that is actually proven, he wont be convicted.

 

Postscript, in case I'm misreading, "self-defense hearing" ...

I'm not following this trial; I only have feelings against those who would deem someone guiltly before it's determined in court, and also those who claim innoncence, which is equally unclear, as yet.

But there is not to my knowledge a "self-defense hearing" in our court system. The defense, and prosecution, can and do file myriad pretrial motions. So it's possible the defense has filed a motion to dismiss based on self-defense, or whatever. But that's just hearing the motion, and ruling on it, and not a self-defense hearing, which again only to my knowledge, does not exist. And it's unlikely to fly, I'm guessing, since there was PCD (cause to detain) and he's out on bond. At that point, judges seldom dismiss, unless the prosecution is not ready, i.e., material witnesses vanish or die, and a trial is not going to be much to go on. Thus, the judge will no doubt let it go to trial, and let the jury decide, or the parties to reach a plea agreement.

 

I was kidding due to the post.....
I do not think it will go deeper, there are too many ''what ifs'' . I think the Jury will cut to the chase with it, self defense or not. What do you think they will try to use?, just about everything I have seen can be argued too easy. There was that forty feet thing but it matters little it can be explained away, I seriously do not know what they have that they can even come close to convincing an entire Jury with. The guy only needs one vote...

 

Zimmerman is not guilty!Period.

 

Me either, albeit, whether or not that occurred will be determined at trial.

And in truth, as a mere citizen, should Zimmerman be found not guilty of the criminal charges, it would be my preferred that our double-jeopardy laws took civil suits into account, and upon being found not guilty of a criminal charge, the defendant be immune from civil suits for the same alleged crime. Maybe bad guys get off scotfree. But the innocent do not deserved to be hounded either, in my opinion.

And I merely speculate, guilty or not, Zimmerman will be BBQ'd, since the Black Community is up in arms, much as the White Community was when OJ was found not guilty.

 

It is a self-defense immunity hearing. It is scheduled for April. He was assert that it was self-defense present his evidence and if by a preponderance of the evidence convinces the judge he had a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death if he did not stop Martin from beating him he will be released and charges dropped.

"

George Zimmerman’s attorney Mark O’Mara told In Session correspondent Jean Casarez on Wednesday that his client’s “Stand Your Ground” hearing is set for April 22.

Zimmerman claims he shot Martin in self-defense, and Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law could allow him to avoid criminal and possibly even civil liability for killing Trayvon Martin.

At the hearing, Zimmerman’s attorneys will have to convince Judge Debra Nelson of three things:

Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity.
Zimmerman was being attacked in a place he had a right to be.
Zimmerman had the reasonable belief that his life and his safety were in danger as a result of an overt act or perceived threat committed by Martin.

If Zimmerman’s attorneys are successful at the hearing, their client could walk out of court a free man with immunity from prosecution. However, if they don’t convince the judge, Zimmerman will face a full criminal trial on June 10. At trial, Zimmerman will still be able to argue self-defense.

Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty to a second-degree murder charge for shooting Martin on Feb. 26, 2012. Martin was returning from a convenience store and was unarmed. Zimmerman told police he shot the teen in self-defense.

Zimmerman’s next hearing is scheduled for March 5."
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/02/06/attorney-zimmermans-stand-your-ground-hearing-set-april

 

Well done, and agreed at the point of ''Do you have a problem'', or ''Whats your problem'',, that's the empty couple of crucial seconds, but much suggests Travon swung first in my opinion...all circumstantial I guess but,,Usually when I guy asks you What's your problem?, that's the aggressor right there, or gives you a damn good clue what is about to follow. Those are fighting words, not a greeting,,correct? Had he intended to be civil he would have said something like,,Can I help you? or,,Excuse me, something wrong?, like I said just guessing, but it does show attitude.

Z knew the cops were coming, that says sooo much. Why in the world start a fight,,why? unless he wanted to get cuffed, and as far as using the gun that would be the VERY last thing he would want to do with the Cops coming,,,come on. Sure Z is dumb,,but not when it comes to the Cops he's not. Only Z knew the Cops were on the way, only Z was willing to involve them, Travon didn't. For a guy so supposedly ''frightened'' he certainly did not act that way. He did NOT run, he did NOT go to the house, he did NOT call the Cops,,this is the guy that was afraid? Where does he show this? , when he asks,,You got a problem?

The physical evidence fits for Zimmerman, hit in the nose and the injury is where? He states he went down and hit his head, and the injury is where? Then states Travon was beating him when down,,what did that witness say? ''The guy wearing red was on the bottom getting hit''
NOW,,,we have all this, all this, and what physical damage was done to Travon?,,,his hand!
This thing is a wrap!

 

The (unique in FL) "Stand Your Ground" law is not something that mandates a hearing of any kind. It's a law that in some cases, eliminates the flee to safety requirment in asserting innocence by self-defense.

So again, I suspect that the April hearing is to rule on a defense motion claiming that Zimmerman fits within the 1995 law, and thus is ruled immune from prosecution, which is merely dismissed with prejudice.